All we’re doing is dabbling

The other day I had to visit one of the more difficult estates I’m currently working on – a small corner of 20 dwellings that’s part of a consortium development involving a number of social landlords.

The pedestrian gate to the car park had been broken for the umpteenth time by a gang of youths from other parts of this large estate who are causing mayhem. They daub the walls with graffiti, urinate in the hallways, damage cars and even leave needles lying about.

“Do something,” the tenants cry out.

“If you don’t, we’ll stop paying the rent,” say others who were already in substantial arrears well before this problem started.

Now, I fully understand the tenants’ predicament. I would not like to live in such an environment of fear and filth.

And their landlord is contractually obliged “not to interfere with the tenants’ quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the premises” – in other words, has an implied duty of care.

At a tenant meeting convened to discuss the problem, the cry went out: “take out an antisocial behaviour order,” no doubt influenced by pre-election hype and spin on antisocial behaviour.

But, apart from the logistics of identifying perpetrators, and gathering evidence and witnesses prepared to testify, there are the not-so-small matters of costs and staff time. The solicitor I consulted quoted a cost of at least £5000 for one case – which is more likely to run to £10,000, he said, once extra costs and VAT are factored in.

Now, housing associations all have to fork out for VAT, as well as income, council and all other taxes. So why, when we pay all these taxes, should we have to do the job that these taxes are meant to cover?

Our ability to raise revenue is restricted by rent restructuring – local authorities are also governed by this.

Vandalism, graffiti, drug-taking and malicious damage are all crimes and we expect our increased numbers of police and community support wardens to tackle them, and arrest and put away the perpetrators. We have a right to expect our legislators to pass laws and introduce measures that prevent antisocial behaviour. And that includes building youth clubs and sports facilities, which once existed in sufficient numbers but vanished during the Thatcher years never to return.

Private landlords and owner-occupiers are not able to or expected to take out ASBOs. Why should social housing landlords be different? More importantly, are we funded to perform this role?

I certainly would not mind taking on this job, provided I were given an adequate budget for it. But dabbling in small projects funded with small Innovation & Good Practice grants is not going to provide a lasting solution.

That can only come from police action, the education system and support for hard-pressed parents.

Antisocial behaviour is not a new phenomenon. I dealt with my first crack house way back in 1990. The local law centre acting for the drug pusher tried to get me committed to prison for illegal eviction. Fortunately, the county court judge was on my side and helpfully pointed out that Section 8b of the Housing Act 1988 gave him discretion to dispense with the requirement of giving notice.

The police too turned up in court in full uniform to support me.

These days the police come and lecture me about protocols, partnership working and the like, but seem powerless to do something about these youths who run amok. That can’t be right, can it?